Fool’s gold? Why blinded trials are not always best: Why blinded trials are not always best

Rohan Anand, John Norrie, Judy Bradley, Danny McAuley, Mike Clarke

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

5 Citations (Scopus)
397 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Blinding is intended to reduce bias but can make studies unnecessarily complex or lead to results that no longer address the clinical question
Original languageEnglish
Article numberl6228
Number of pages5
JournalBMJ
Volume368
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 21 Jan 2020

Keywords

  • Clinical Trials as Topic/organization & administration
  • Data Accuracy
  • Double-Blind Method
  • Humans
  • Observer Variation
  • Outcome Assessment, Health Care/methods
  • Patient Safety
  • Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/methods
  • Research Design/standards

Access to Document

  • Fool’s gold? Why blinded trials are not always best

    Copyright 2019 BMJ. This work is made available online in accordance with the publisher’s policies. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.

    Final published version, 874 KBLicence: Unspecified

    Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Fool’s gold? Why blinded trials are not always best: Why blinded trials are not always best'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this